• Columbia Pictures anti-piracy contractor serves multiple false DMCA claims against Vimeo videos that
    17 replies, posted
[url]https://torrentfreak.com/anti-piracy-group-hits-indie-creators-for-using-the-word-pixels-150808/[/url] [quote=TorrentFreak]An anti-piracy firm working for Columbia Pictures has hit Vimeo with a wave of bogus copyright takedowns just because people used the word 'Pixels' in their video titles. Several indie productions are affected, including an art-focused NGO, an award-winning short movie and a royalty free stock footage company. Tens of millions of DMCA-style notices are sent to online services every week complaining about copyright infringement. While most are accurate, some contain errors. Some take screwing up to a whole new level. This week anti-piracy group Entura International sent a notice to Vimeo in what first appeared to be an effort to stop piracy of the Columbia movie ‘Pixels’. Not only did it fail to do that in every way possible, it hit a number of indie creators and filmmakers instead.[/quote]
How bad is Vimeo compared to YouTube if your videos get hit with bullshit like this?
There should be a significant fine for sending out automated DMCA notices that hit innocent targets. Like $10,000 for the first false positive in a batch and adding $20,000 for each subsequent one in the same week. Who wants to watch Pixels anyway, pirated or not? It's basically weaponized rule 34, only instead of NSFW smut it's a cheap nostalgia cash-grab, unashamedly cashing in your childhood.
[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;48418444]There should be a significant fine for sending out automated DMCA notices that hit innocent targets. Like $10,000 for the first false positive in a batch and adding $20,000 for each subsequent one in the same week. Who wants to watch Pixels anyway, pirated or not? It's basically weaponized rule 34, only instead of NSFW smut it's a cheap nostalgia cash-grab, unashamedly cashing in your childhood.[/QUOTE] There has to be a fine. This way they can just stop the "spam". but you know the MPAA has enough lobbyists in the government that this will never happen. and i have to agree, this movie just looks like a nostalgia hipster cash-grab. Plus the guy who can only play 1 character: Adam Sandler.
I don't know how it works on Vimeo but doing something like this on Youtube with copyright claims can get you sued.
[QUOTE=Helix Snake;48418512]I don't know how it works on Vimeo but doing something like this on Youtube with copyright claims can get you sued.[/QUOTE] Good luck suing Columbia Pictures for false copyright claim. Unless you're loaded that is.
[QUOTE=itisjuly;48418533]Good luck suing Columbia Pictures for false copyright claim. Unless you're loaded that is.[/QUOTE] Why do people think that you need to be loaded to sue someone? You just need to find a lawyer that is willing to pick the case up, and thinks they have the chance to win.
Corporate hegemony.
[QUOTE=Richard Simmons;48418699]Why do people think that you need to be loaded to sue someone? You just need to find a lawyer that is willing to pick the case up, and thinks they have the chance to win.[/QUOTE] Because the court case will get dragged out for 10 years due to the big entertainment cartel having effectively infinite money, and robot lawyers are not admitted by the Bar, so your lawyer needs to get paid eventually and the big guys can just stalemate until you're bankrupt.
[QUOTE=Richard Simmons;48418699]Why do people think that you need to be loaded to sue someone? You just need to find a lawyer that is willing to pick the case up, and thinks they have the chance to win.[/QUOTE] Because you need the money to pay that lawyer, and then if you lose there's all those expenses atop it.
[QUOTE=Richard Simmons;48418699]Why do people think that you need to be loaded to sue someone? You just need to find a lawyer that is willing to pick the case up, and thinks they have the chance to win.[/QUOTE] Lawyers are expensive and you could still lose.
[QUOTE=itisjuly;48418533]Good luck suing Columbia Pictures for false copyright claim. Unless you're loaded that is.[/QUOTE] This is a rather cut and dry case though. If anything it would be a waste for the entertainment companies to actually dispute the case. They'd probably just settle it out of court with a sum of money so it gets quietly swept under the rug.
[QUOTE=Kyle902;48419027]This is a rather cut and dry case though. If anything it would be a waste for the entertainment companies to actually dispute the case. They'd probably just settle it out of court with a sum of money so it gets quietly swept under the rug.[/QUOTE] Except whatever it would cost them is a drop in an endless well of money, and settling would just encourage more people to take up cases against them.
[QUOTE=DaMastez;48419155]Except whatever it would cost them is a drop in an endless well of money, and settling would just encourage more people to take up cases against them.[/QUOTE] It would arguably cost more to pursue a court case then it would be to make a settlement. Not to mention the negative publicity of an anti-piracy group being brought to court for copyright infringement.
[QUOTE=Kyle902;48419177]It would arguably cost more to pursue a court case then it would be to make a settlement. Not to mention the negative publicity of an anti-piracy group being brought to court for copyright infringement.[/QUOTE]Does a false claim even fall under infringement?
[QUOTE=itisjuly;48419195]Does a false claim even fall under infringement?[/QUOTE] When you submit a Youtube copyright claim it says you must represent the owners of the infringed content "under penalty of perjury" but that might just be trying to scare people away from making false claims.
[QUOTE=Richard Simmons;48418699]Why do people think that you need to be loaded to sue someone? You just need to find a lawyer that is willing to pick the case up, and thinks they have the chance to win.[/QUOTE] because copyright lawsuits are about who's pile of cash lasts the longest before one capitulates
[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;48418444]There should be a significant fine for sending out automated DMCA notices that hit innocent targets. Like $10,000 for the first false positive in a batch and adding $20,000 for each subsequent one in the same week. Who wants to watch Pixels anyway, pirated or not? It's basically weaponized rule 34, only instead of NSFW smut it's a cheap nostalgia cash-grab, unashamedly cashing in your childhood.[/QUOTE] Seeing the commercial made me cringe. Video games have become so sophisticated and yets ignorants will perpetuate stereotypes that video games are just somes 80s retro coin collecting bullshit.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.